The shroud of turin

[ignoramus]

They're left to scraping the bottom of the barrel of the god of the gaps
Any piece of scrap, no matter how implausible is enough to spark hope in those who desperately crave it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What I don't get is why it matters.  Let's say the Shroud is proven to be a pious fraud, that all the things skeptics say about it turn out to be true and verifiable to the extent that even the most ardent authenticity supporters admit they got it wrong.  Do we imagine for one minute that this is going to damage anyone's belief in Jesus?

Similarly, if the Shroud were shown to be authentic (in that it is the burial cloth of the Jesus of the Gospel narrative), are we seriously to expect mass conversions to Christianity?  It would do nothing to prove the divinity of Jesus, or the miracles claimed for Jesus, or, well, anything other than that he was wrapped in this particular cloth.

The whole thing smacks of desperation.

Boru

[Otangelo]

I am all too familiar with Schwortz and his website having beaten it to death years ago. It has not improved.

The figure on the tablecloth of turin is wrong. It is anatomically impossible and ethnically absurd. Carbon dating blows any claim of a first century date right out of the water. The weave is medieval. The wrapping method is entirely wrong for jewish funerary protocol at the time. The methods used by STURP are dubious at best. Most christians dont base their faith on a rag of cloth anyway. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Bottom line is that if your faith is so flimsy that it relies on an obvious fake to bolster it, then what value is your faith?

Age of the shroud of turin




An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
Accepted 24 September 2019
The Shroud is unique because on one surface it contains clearly visible front and back images of a man, apparently crucified. Quite apart from any religious significance, the Shroud became, and remains, the focus of scientific inquiry because it is not known how the images on it were formed.

Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.

Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.

Rogers (2005) proposed a method for cross checking the dates of ancient textiles by measuring the loss of vanillin from residual lignin at the growth nodes of linen fibers. The tests he performed on the Shroud threads suggested to him a much greater age than the results Damon et al.

Fanti et al. (2013) developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015).




In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca  filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally releases all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous dates that fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize  a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing.




Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin 
The major problem in estimating the age of the shroud is the fact that the rate law is exponential; i.e., the maximum diurnal temperature is much more important than is the lowest storage temperature. However, some reasonable storage temperatures can be considered to give a range of predicted ages. If the shroud had been stored at a constant 25 ◦C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin. At 23 ◦C, it would have taken about 1845 years. At 20 ◦C, it would take about 3095 years. If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported

---

The shroud of turin...

is a fake.  And a badly made one at that.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that all 12 holy prepuces are real.

---

TL;DR: The Shroud of Turin is a lot less meaningful method of "proving" Christianity than it might seem at first glance.

But, hey at least it's a good way to debunk christianity.  Somebody put an awful lot of time, effort & money into making it and then selling it.  A person well conversant in the catholic practice of making fake relics.

The attributes of the image it's this:

- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there's no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there's no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that that any that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now

that's interesting no image under the blood which tells you this that the order of events is is that is that the
blood was on the cloth first followed by the image when did the image get there we don't know maybe three days later I don't know just later and so so now that makes sense if it's authentic

---

1. The cloth is incompatible with New Testament accounts of Jesus' burial. John's gospel (19:38-42, 20:5-7) specifically states that the body was "wound" with "linen clothes". We're told that on reaching the empty tomb, they 'saw the strips of linen lying there'. Still another cloth (called "the napkin") covered his face and head. In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the "body").

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-1b

It is reasonable to assume that the twice mentioned “linen cloths” (along with the words “strips” or “wrappings” in some translations) describe what is now called the Shroud of Turin. But what then is the “handkerchief that had been around His head.”? The “handkerchief” or “napkin” (in some translations) is thought to be what is named the "Sudarium of Oviedo."
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

[Abaddon_ire]

I am all too familiar with Schwortz and his website having beaten it to death years ago. It has not improved.

The figure on the tablecloth of turin is wrong. It is anatomically impossible and ethnically absurd. Carbon dating blows any claim of a first century date right out of the water. The weave is medieval. The wrapping method is entirely wrong for jewish funerary protocol at the time. The methods used by STURP are dubious at best. Most christians dont base their faith on a rag of cloth anyway. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Bottom line is that if your faith is so flimsy that it relies on an obvious fake to bolster it, then what value is your faith?

Age of the shroud of turin




An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
Accepted 24 September 2019
The Shroud is unique because on one surface it contains clearly visible front and back images of a man, apparently crucified. Quite apart from any religious significance, the Shroud became, and remains, the focus of scientific inquiry because it is not known how the images on it were formed.

Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.

Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.

Rogers (2005) proposed a method for cross checking the dates of ancient textiles by measuring the loss of vanillin from residual lignin at the growth nodes of linen fibers. The tests he performed on the Shroud threads suggested to him a much greater age than the results Damon et al.

Fanti et al. (2013) developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015).




In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca  filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally releases all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous dates that fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize  a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing.




Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin 
The major problem in estimating the age of the shroud is the fact that the rate law is exponential; i.e., the maximum diurnal temperature is much more important than is the lowest storage temperature. However, some reasonable storage temperatures can be considered to give a range of predicted ages. If the shroud had been stored at a constant 25 ◦C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin. At 23 ◦C, it would have taken about 1845 years. At 20 ◦C, it would take about 3095 years. If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported

---

is a fake.  And a badly made one at that.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that all 12 holy prepuces are real.

---

But, hey at least it's a good way to debunk christianity.  Somebody put an awful lot of time, effort & money into making it and then selling it.  A person well conversant in the catholic practice of making fake relics.

The attributes of the image it's this:

- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there's no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there's no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that that any that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now

that's interesting no image under the blood which tells you this that the order of events is is that is that the
blood was on the cloth first followed by the image when did the image get there we don't know maybe three days later I don't know just later and so so now that makes sense if it's authentic

---

1. The cloth is incompatible with New Testament accounts of Jesus' burial. John's gospel (19:38-42, 20:5-7) specifically states that the body was "wound" with "linen clothes". We're told that on reaching the empty tomb, they 'saw the strips of linen lying there'. Still another cloth (called "the napkin") covered his face and head. In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the "body").

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-1b

It is reasonable to assume that the twice mentioned “linen cloths” (along with the words “strips” or “wrappings” in some translations) describe what is now called the Shroud of Turin. But what then is the “handkerchief that had been around His head.”? The “handkerchief” or “napkin” (in some translations) is thought to be what is named the "Sudarium of Oviedo."
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

It remains anatomically impossible.

[JackRussell]

Why is a cloth proof of magic?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It always looked to me more like Rasputin than Jesus.



Boru

[Fake Messiah]

It always looked to me more like Rasputin than Jesus.



Boru

1 Corinthians 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

[Gwaithmir]

1. The cloth is incompatible with New Testament accounts of Jesus' burial. John's gospel (19:38-42, 20:5-7) specifically states that the body was "wound" with "linen clothes". We're told that on reaching the empty tomb, they 'saw the strips of linen lying there'. Still another cloth (called "the napkin") covered his face and head. In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the "body").

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-1b

It is reasonable to assume that the twice mentioned “linen cloths” (along with the words “strips” or “wrappings” in some translations) describe what is now called the Shroud of Turin. But what then is the “handkerchief that had been around His head.”? The “handkerchief” or “napkin” (in some translations) is thought to be what is named the "Sudarium of Oviedo."
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

Wrong! Wrapping the body with strips of cloth, as mentioned in the Bible, is similar to the way Egyptian mummies were wrapped when prepared for burial. Strips of cloth are, in no way, identical to a shroud, which is a single sheet of cloth. Not only is the Shroud inconsistent with the biblical account, it is also inconsistent with Jewish funerary practices of the period.

[Mister Agenda]

On the hair thing, if there was an 'historical Jesus', he likely kept his hair somewhat short according to the custom of the place and time, since he wasn't a Nazarite (Nazarites were teetotalers, while Yeshua was reputed to drink wine). The Jesus of the Shroud of Turin is of the popularly-imagined Jesus. Coincidence? I think not.

[Fake Messiah]

Talking about religious relics, what, nobody talks about dragon's bones in the church in Venice?



I mean priests there believe that they are real and they caused many miraculous healings, so isn't that evidence enough?

And it's not the only church that claims to have dragon bones, there's a cathedral in Poland with miracle inducing dragon bones.